These are the notes from the [https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Category:Meeting_Notes The 304th Meeting of Noisebridge]. Note-taker: [[User:dj_ryan|Ryan]]; Moderator: [[user:Setient|Ron]]. Attendance was not taken.

−

+

−

These are the notes from the [https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Category:Meeting_Notes The 304th Meeting of Noisebridge]. Note-taker: [[dj_ryan]]; Moderator: [[setient]].

Howard asked to be considered for membership. He was asked to learn more about consensus and to read and understand the anti-harassment policy first.

= Financial Report =

= Financial Report =

Line 21:

Line 21:

== [[ Consensus Items History | Proposals from last week ]] ==

== [[ Consensus Items History | Proposals from last week ]] ==

−

''(Add any items which pass or are blocked to the [[Consensus Items History]] page.)''

−

* Lee Sonko banning procedural changes

+

=== Suspend Robin ===

−

** The item was on the docket for 3 weeks/meetings, a member attended on the first 2 meetings intending to block, but wasnt able to attend the 3rd meeting, the item was consensus upon on the 3rd meeting.

** Rayc: "I've been affiliated with nb for 4 years. I've been a huge contributor, I made a mistake. If you want to ban me, there is a good reason to, my action doesn't merit the punishment."

+

−

** Tom: "Rayc just demonstrated he doesnt think it's serious"

+

−

** Rayc: "He is trolling me right now, from what I thought at the time I was doing it."

+

−

** Monad: "This one event will always be part of your history."

+

−

** XX: "Has anyone else fucked up bad? There are bigger issues than napping on the elevator?"

+

−

** jayc: "This was a questionable decision at the time you made it, would you make the same decision again? (rayc: I would not make the same decision) What atonments could/would you make?"

+

−

** V: "I did not know you were on the elevator, trash night was a hardship without the elevator. On a positive note, rayc was one of the first to organize a cleanup of the electronics section.

+

−

** Setient: Will anyone consider a block? Setient would block a perma-ban. No blockers on a 6 month ban, jayc stands aside on 6 month ban

+

−

** Constantine: "People are not static, how you treat this person will affect him"

+

−

** jayc: "police told me this is a commercial/residential mixed use space"

+

−

** "It's always been unexcellent to sleep in noisebridge, sleeping on the elevator is very not excellent"

+

−

** jayc: "I would like to see it as 6 months from the incident." (RAYC: I think that's fair)

+

−

** Item passes. Rayc spends some time to gather his items. He did not leave for 15-20 minutes.

+

+

=== Banning Josh ===

+

We had a very long discussion. Two of the three people who had volunteered to speak with Josh were present and participated. We reached consensus. [[User:bfb|Kevin]], [[user:Thex|JC]], and [[User:James|James]] stood aside.

−

* Publish council member list in git repo

+

== [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] ==

−

** Kevin: "Why is publishing council membership a necessary?"

+

There were no new consensus proposals

−

** Tom: "the only person who knows is a member is me. This is ridiculous."

+

−

** Tom: "Discussion list is not a reasonable way to reach people."

+

−

** Jayc: "..."

+

−

** Tom: "There will be a date after which, the list on github is the list of all council members, and is correct, and has a reasonable contact method."

+

−

** Tom: "Jacob is not a member in good standing, and has no intent on coming to noisebridge ever again."

+

−

** jayc: "Would it prevent him from participating again?"

+

−

** Discussion tabled.

+

−

* Gregory asked to leave discussion

+

= Discussion Notes =

−

** Tom: He should come back now

+

−

** V: I spoke with josh before he left nyc, he didnt ask Gregory to leave

+

−

** Tom: I think we all agree he can come back (a few ayes)

+

−

* Banning Josh

+

=== Consensus process limitations ===

−

** Setient: He has alledgedly been living in the space

+

This was a continuation of our discussions of the problems exposed by the banning of Lee Sonko. We agreed that it is difficult to predict at which meeting will see discussion of which proposals, and at this is unreasonably inconvenient for those who cannot regularly attend meetings. We would like to solve this problem by having a process to predict at which future meetings a proposal will be elegible for consensus.

−

** Tom: he has admitted to me he has chose on multiple times to "power nap" for 3-5 hours in the middle of the night, he did not have a viable alternative to go to

+

−

** XX: somehow he got caught up in drama, and considering he is in nyc and won't come back for a while. if he comes back, firmly tell him not to sleep at noisebridge.

+

−

** jayc: josh is not welcome at noisebridge until he attended a tuesday meeting.

+

−

** setient: He did attend a few meetings.

+

−

** XX: Lets not block, if he returns, lets handle it then. I would do a pull request.

+

−

** Kevin: I told him not to sleep here, he said "i will do what I want, what I am doing is not an issue."

+

−

** Constantine: why is sleeping here an issue?

+

−

** Monad: it isnt a legal issue anymore

+

−

** Constantine: what aspect is the very rigid stance against sleeping?

+

−

** jayc: historical reference - it's not about sleeping, its about living here, people who have rights and things.

+

−

** Constantine: I want to understand

+

−

** Tom: (aside) There is more than one rule

+

−

** kevin: there is a lot of history and complexity here, we need to listen to other people

+

−

** kevin: just because it rhymes doesnt mean it's true. i would have preferred a deeper dialog.

+

−

** tom: The final interlude (the rhyming) was the end of our discussion. I had a deeper dialog with him.

+

−

** tom: he did not object to my characterization of his use of the space as providing the daily necessities of survival. He spent 140 hours a week, there is 168 hours week (nb: 20 hours/day on avg). 'noisebridge is your hackerspace not your hostel.'

+

−

** Howard: he was doing sleep hacking? Tom: sleep hacking is often used as an excuse.

** Ryan: To Tom: was josh sleeping here and using it as living space? Tom: yes

+

−

** James: he's my friend, asked him was he sleeping here? And he ended up saying yes I was sleeping here. There isnt a rule? Can you stop sleeping here?

+

−

** V: it's not true that josh doesnt have anywhere to go, i have put josh up at my apartment, he wants to help sid fixing the computers. He is a benefit of to his place. It would be a mistake to ban someone like that from noisebridge."

+

−

** dan: to address the salient point that noisebridge is a hackerspace not a hostel. If he interferes with others ability to hack here. As a procedural note and suggestion, I'm really troubled that Josh isn't here. At the meetings he was present, it wasnt clear we were going to discuss. Table this until we need to talk about it.

+

−

** Tom: I think josh is incorrigible. Sleep hacking - we arent convinced this isnt what is going on? The reason he was at 140 hours a week because he used noisebridge for the necessary activities of daily living that we would use our homes for. I think josh has been substantially informed this week that this is the decision week. We have a strong agreement on the norms of this type of behavior, and this is a very clear situation, and refuses to change despite multiple people asking him to change. Everything is procedurally correct and legit.

+

−

** Constantine: trying to understand, banning people is philosophically harsh.

+

−

** Monad: this is not a crash pad

+

−

** Constantine: Kicking out a problem isnt the same as solving it. (multiple interruptions) Homeless people have historically not been kicked out, kicking them out isnt helping them.

+

−

** Sid: This is something josh and I agree on, he's going to be gone for at least a year/6 months, he's already gone he's in NYC.

+

−

** XX: Josh felt he was harassed, and more

+

−

** constantine: "eviction does not equal solution"

+

−

** Kevin: Bad precedent to ban someone in another state.

+

−

** Tom: Yes it was discussed, someone communicated with him about the space.

+

−

** Sid: it sounds like a grudge match honestly, seems kind of petty and cowardly to attack someone who is not in the space.

+

−

** Kevin: I will stand aside, it sets a bad precedent.

+

−

** 3 standasides for the consensus

+

−

** (insert discussion about what consensus is)

+

−

** Kevin: No ban should be made on the fact that it can be undone later.

+

−

** V: Josh has a forward and blunt way of speaking, and we tried to ban each other. He saved a man's life, he was vomiting (at noisebridge), Josh called an ambulance to SF general.

+

−

** Kevin: Whats the big deal about banning 1 of 7 billion people? What kind of community do we want to grow?

+

−

** Kevin: Response to 'why not block' - because consensus is good to discuss, and i would only block if it prevented me from wanting to returning to noisebridge. I dont feel he is incorrigible and is very approachable.

+

−

** Sid: everyone i teach hardware to needs a nap. How many of you have learned hardware from me? This space keeps moving because of changes like rayc and josh. Everyone I teach you block.

+

−

** Constantine: when do you kick someone out? Is it ever a good idea to kick someone out? He's out of the state for a year, why even do it? (grey area) It looks like it, everyone's engaged

+

−

** XX: Sid said he's out of the state in a year, why not have a meeting with him present, and then discuss it then (presumably in the far future?)

+

−

** Tom: How do you think josh attending a meeting will change the situation?

+

−

** Alternate proposal: Complete the mediate process before he returns to the space (Tom: what process? with who?)

+

−

** Constantine: A good alternative resolution would be resolve he comes to a tuesday meeting. (side: he isn't coming back for a year!) Discuss later when he returns!

+

−

** Kevin: He should bring the argument about sleeping in the space.

+

−

** Tom: Enough people have discussed this, and appears unrepentant. So far he seems unrepentant.

+

−

** kevin: i would prefer not to ban him, and to mediate, and to take process of that mediation.

+

−

** Tom: I am happy to say that if josh comes back and have a discussion about his use of noisebridge as a living space, and I find myself convinced he does not will continue to use. I believe past behavior is predictive of future behavor.

+

−

** XX: Direct response: Your belief does not allow for change of people (Tom: that is correct)

+

−

** XX2: I hear a lot about living space, what is living space at noisebridge? I know people who have spent 72 hours straight awake here doing good things, leaving for 6-8 hours.

+

−

** Setient: Will anyone block?

+

−

** Kevin: I find it difficult to be put on the spot on a weekly basis.

+

−

** Setient: We need to put more vigilance into the space to prevent Josh's type of behavior. Puts the onus on people not attending and supervising at all time.

+

−

** Tom: The space should not be open at 4am. We should close the space if we cant supervise it.

+

−

** XX3: Josh prevented and ended the drug use and ended up banning some people.

+

−

** Tom: People should learn more about consensus, the reason why meetings take a long time is people misunderstanding consensus.

+

−

** James: I will block

+

−

** Consensus: Blockers: James

+

−

== [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] ==

+

There were several proposals for different procedures to produce this outcome. We agreed that their authors should write them down, so that we can evalute them more easily.

−

''(Add any new items for consensus to the [[Current Consensus Items]] page.)''

+

−

= Discussion Notes =

−

* Extensive Discussion with Howard about membership.

+

=== Gregory Dillon ===

−

** Questions included when would block items, what is hacking, what do you think about the kitchen, bike trailer, would you allow for the free expression of art, graffiti vs art, what is consensus, money, what is the anti-harassment policy about, more harassment questions.

+

This was a short discussion. We firmly agreed that there is no reason why Gregory should not feel welcome to come to Noisebridge.

Discussion Notes

Consensus process limitations

This was a continuation of our discussions of the problems exposed by the banning of Lee Sonko. We agreed that it is difficult to predict at which meeting will see discussion of which proposals, and at this is unreasonably inconvenient for those who cannot regularly attend meetings. We would like to solve this problem by having a process to predict at which future meetings a proposal will be elegible for consensus.

There were several proposals for different procedures to produce this outcome. We agreed that their authors should write them down, so that we can evalute them more easily.

Gregory Dillon

This was a short discussion. We firmly agreed that there is no reason why Gregory should not feel welcome to come to Noisebridge.

Publish council member list in git repo

Tom expressed the same planned procedure that he expressed at previous meetings. There was some discussion of the balance between individual privacy and a transparent decision-making process.